witchypoo

Music: The Cranes: [self-titled](2008)

Responding to allegations concerning the Watergate scandal, in a live, televised question and answer session with journalists on November 17, 1973, Richard Nixon acknowledged that "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook," and insisted, "Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got." In the political popular imaginary, Nixon's "I am not a crook" ranks right up there with, "It's the economy stupid" and "Read my lips: no new taxes!" While I am doubtful the topic of today's blog post will endure in the political imaginary, it ranks as second only to Nixon's as the most ludicrous statement from a politician. The unlikely Tea Party-backed senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, released her first political advertisement of her bid today:

In its proper context, O'Donnell is referring to video released by Bill Maher of his famed Politically Incorrect talk show, which features her saying:

Oh boy, this makes me so giddy I can hardly contain myself. The apparently inane comments made in front of the disbelieving have now come back to challenge O'Donnell's base---the tea baggers. Let's texualize her speech for closer scrutiny:

I'm not a witch. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you. None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see around us. Politicians who think spending, trading favors, and back-room deals are the ways to stay in office. I'll go to Washington, and do what you'd do. I'm Christine O'Donnell, and I approve this message. I'm you.

There's much to analyze in the video itself about O'Donnell's delivery, initially dismissive, then smug (and the choice of the dark background seems odd, but it does enhance the signifier of the pearl necklace---respectability, conservatism, and so on). But what a statement to lead off your television campaign, "I'm not a witch." Initially we could suppose the intention with such as statement is twofold: (1) O'Donnell is riding the coattails of this recent video in the publicity of humor; and/or (2) her handlers are genuinely worried some voters would believe that O'Donnell could be a witch (after all, some believe Obama is from Kenya).

I would think the first intention was sound, except for the sentence that follows: "I'm nothing you’ve heard." This clearly implicates an attempt at rumor control, which negates any "fun." This means that her campaign is worried about what her core constituency, folks who identify with the "Tea Party" movement, think about Maher's leaked clip.

Let us think about this for just a minute: O'Donnell's handlers are worried that her constituency may possibly believe she is secretly a Satanist.

Last night---before I knew this "I'm not a witch" ad was about to debut---I read with great interest Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article, "Tea and Crackers," a scathing, hilarious, and historical look at how the Rebublichristians made this monster. It's obvious Taibbi is not from the region he criticizes (Kentucky, the "anus" of the deep south he says), and I think he is way off the mark many times. Nevertheless, his point about the contradictory stances of Tea baggers (their exceptionalism) is well taken. So, too, are the psychological theories of how this movement functions (which I've already blogged about here).

With O'Donnell's ad today, however, we can add some Adorno to the mix. In the edited collection The Stars Down to Earth, Adorno describes those attracted to newspaper horoscopes as living in a “climate of semi-erudition," which "is the fertile breeding ground for astrology. . . . The semi-erudite vaguely wants to understand and is also driven by the narcissistic wish to prove superior to the plain people but he is not in a position to carry through complicated and detached intellectual operations.” As with most conspiracy theories, appeals to one's specialness (as having a secret map to the territory, or that one is part of a select) succeed---especially when such appeals are accompanied with something to do our thinking for us. "I'm not a witch. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you."

The rhetorical appeal is especially interesting, because O'Donnell is saying that her opponents would have her be the exotic "Other"---a term connoted by "witch," or any other manner of labels "you've heard." But then saying "I'm you" attempts to make a direct substitution: I am you, that is, I am your sense of right and wrong. O'Donnell does not say, "I represent you," or even ask the adorable question Robert Smith whined so famously, "Why can't I be you?" Nope. O'Donnell says she is you.

Frankly, from what I know about Wicca, I had much rather her be a witch. Witches are respectful of individual autonomy. To have a politician assert she is "me" is much more akin to demonic possession---and a much more troubling assertion for those of us who respect and recognize difference. To me, the assertion "I am not a witch" is quite funny from a politician. But followed by the phrase, "I am you" is the depth of terror. Happy early Halloween, Delaware peeps.